Kamala Harris Considering an Arms Embargo on Israel if Elected, All in the Name of Progressive Ideals

 

Harris may be a wonderful person, but no amount of charm can embargo the truth: pulling support from Israel would be the biggest blunder since someone tried to trade oil for water in the desert. Even though Harris dreams of global unity, the reality check is that an arms embargo on Israel could turn a dream into a nightmare—proof that sometimes the road to peace is paved with iron, not ideals.

It seems that Kamala Harris, with all her charm and poise, might be planning to make the most entertaining mistake in U.S. foreign policy if she ever sits in the Oval Office. Imagine this: a potential President Harris considering an arms embargo against Israel, as if doing so would somehow solve the world's problems or bring peace to the Middle East. While her intentions might seem noble to some, the reality is that this move would likely go down as one of the most misguided decisions in American history.

First, let’s talk about Israel’s role in global politics. Israel is not just another country; it’s America’s most steadfast ally in the Middle East, a region known for its political volatility. Since its establishment in 1948, Israel has faced countless threats from neighboring countries and non-state actors, yet it remains one of the few democracies in the region. The United States, recognizing Israel’s strategic importance, has provided billions of dollars in military aid over the years. In fact, in 2016, the Obama administration signed a $38 billion military aid package for Israel over ten years, the largest in U.S. history. This move wasn’t just a show of friendship; it was a calculated decision to ensure stability in a region where American interests are constantly under threat.

Now, picture this: Harris, upon assuming the presidency, decides to cut off this crucial military aid or impose an arms embargo. This would be like pulling the rug out from under Israel at a time when threats from Iran, Hezbollah, and other adversaries are as potent as ever. Iran, for instance, has been vocal about its desire to destroy Israel, and its influence in the region has only grown stronger in recent years. By weakening Israel’s military capabilities, an arms embargo would essentially give Iran and other hostile entities a green light to escalate their aggression.

Moreover, it’s important to remember the broader implications of such a move. The United States’ support for Israel is not just about helping a friend; it’s about maintaining a balance of power in the Middle East. Israel’s military strength serves as a deterrent against the ambitions of countries like Iran, which has been expanding its influence across the region through proxy wars in Syria, Yemen, and Iraq. If Israel’s military capabilities were diminished, the power vacuum could lead to greater instability, which would have far-reaching consequences not just for the Middle East, but for global security.

Let’s also consider the historical context. The relationship between the United States and Israel has been one of the cornerstones of American foreign policy since the 1960s. This partnership has been mutually beneficial, with Israel acting as a reliable partner in intelligence sharing, counterterrorism, and technological innovation. Israel’s intelligence agency, Mossad, has provided the U.S. with critical information that has thwarted numerous terrorist attacks and has been instrumental in tracking and eliminating high-profile terrorists. Furthermore, Israeli innovations in defense technology, such as the Iron Dome missile defense system, have been game-changers in modern warfare, benefiting not just Israel but also the United States and its allies.

Now, imagine a scenario where Harris decides to halt arms sales to Israel. Not only would this strain diplomatic relations, but it could also embolden Israel’s enemies. Without access to the latest American military technology, Israel would be forced to rely on older systems or seek new alliances, possibly with countries that do not share the same values as the United States. This could shift the geopolitical landscape in ways that are difficult to predict but almost certainly detrimental to American interests.

Furthermore, such a move could have domestic repercussions for Harris herself. The pro-Israel lobby in the United States is one of the most powerful political forces, with significant influence in both the Democratic and Republican parties. Alienating this group could cost Harris dearly in terms of political capital and support, especially in a country where public opinion largely favors maintaining strong ties with Israel. According to a 2021 Gallup poll, 75% of Americans have a favorable view of Israel, with a majority supporting continued military aid. Going against this tide would be politically risky, to say the least.

Let’s not forget the potential impact on America’s standing in the world. The U.S. has long been seen as a guarantor of security for its allies, and a sudden shift in policy towards Israel could send shockwaves through the international community. Allies in Europe, Asia, and beyond might begin to question America’s reliability, wondering if they too could be abandoned if political winds shift in Washington. This could lead to a weakening of alliances and a loss of influence for the United States on the global stage.

In plain terms, while Harris may believe that an arms embargo on Israel aligns with her progressive values or her vision for a more peaceful world, the reality is that such a move would likely do more harm than good. The Middle East is a region where power and strength dictate survival, and Israel’s military capabilities are crucial not just for its own defense, but for the stability of the entire region. Weakening Israel through an arms embargo would be akin to opening Pandora’s box, unleashing a host of problems that would be difficult, if not impossible, to contain.

So, if Harris does become president and decides to pursue this path, she might just find that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And perhaps, as she watches the consequences unfold, she’ll come to realize that in the realm of foreign policy, reality often trumps ideology. Or perhaps she’ll just continue to be that wonderfully progressive person, sitting back and enjoying the show as the world burns.